partial streamlining facts

[JackD]

won't change to accomodate the desire to change the sheep much.
Allowing the tire rules to get ten years behind the curve is an example of out of control rather than too much.
when the rules are screwed down to the point that they become impossible to run and you have to procede without them to even run, that indicates a problem.

[Larry Forstall]

Hawkwind: I think you are missing the point. Rules serve as the boundary. There is still plenty of room within to be creative. Changing rules is not being creative, it is a quick fix for performance inadequacy. I watched Rich Yancy take the Bud Busa from an underperforming 215 MPH weakling to the 260 MPH King Kong it is today. A MPH at a time he refined and refined.  What would your football and cricket fans say if you enlarged the goals (wickets) or changed the size of the field? Then you would be playing different games and the past would have no meaning.      Larry

[rosemeyer]

Hold your horses Hawkwind!
Just because you have a different point of view doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong.
Basically, you want the best of both worlds.
You want to run a partially streamlined bike with the freedom of the streamliners category. I have news for you: there is not such class. It's like sitting between 2 chairs. You must read the rule book attentively, and choose wich class you want to run in, and accept its rules. Nobody is going to change the rules just for you.
You say rules are archaic and never change. Wrong, the streamliners class was introduced when more and more people were adding bits to their bike. Don't forget, bike used to have NO fairing at all originally. Then front fork and engine shroudings came  in the 30s (not always with success or making any difference), before the all-enveloping bodywork appeared slowly (30/40s), evolving into lay-down streamliners in the 50s.
At the end, the rulemakers had to legislate to differenciate between what are 3 different types of bikes. Each type has its advantages and its drawbacks.
Also, the hint that anyone who do not share your enthusiam for your idea is either a wimp or lacks vision needs to be addressed. I don't think that anyone who put 5 or 600 hp through the back wheel can be called a wimp. It takes HUGE balls to do that!
The fastest partially streamlined bikes run 260 over the mile now, with a top speed above that, while the bikes you mentioned rarelly reached 200. Not much difference? Only 100 km/h!
Many of the bike you quoted had terrible handling problems, in fact some of them ran ONLY with part of the streamlining removed! Taruffi's Gilera never broke a record with the full bodywork, Henne insisted on having the top cover removed on his BMW, etc... Now, we know a lot more than then. These were pioneers, now we have science to help us, computers, wind tunnels, etc... to tell us were we shouldn't go. Adding a long tailfin, or boatails as you call it, shifts the centre of pressure back behind the centre of gravity and makes the bike highly uncontrolable. Knowing this we don't need to reinvent the wheel and go there again.
People who want to use aerodynamics to their full extend choose the streamliners class, but even then there are limits to what you can do and safety is paramount.
Everybody is allowed to do what ever he wants in his own time if he is suicidal enough, but think about the organisers. Should they allow on the track a vehicle which is judged dangerous at the risk of witnessing a crash, possible fatality, getting bad publicity, increase in insurance premium probably, the risk of more restrictions, etc...
 I am afraid that you are on your own on that one...

[hawkwind]

you blokes need to learn a little Aussie sarcastic humor   this media is notorous  for ppl missing the point ( my humble apologies for ofending any poor soules   )
My point ( plain english) rules will change / evolve dynamically , through many ways ,technogoly , popular opinion , politics , agendas (personal or otherwise) and many other reasons , rosemeyer even you acknowledged this in your last post , and history has shown this will continue ,sorry guys nothing remains static for very long , what seems a fair thing today will be pushed aside in the fullness of time ,only to be changed again .
Thankfully I don't have to bang heads with the good folk of the SCTA (directly at least ) in another far off hemisphere rules are a changing  
Larry correct me if im in error , pure grunt  in the form of a massive dose of HP is the prime reason for the dramatic increase in terminal speeds of late , the Bussa has reasonable aero compaired to other motorcycles  but it is power not aero that rules , yes the more power you throw at the brick wall the further you can push it ,in a cubed way of course   I suspose further gains can be made using this route , but you will be chasing the laws of diminishing returns ,  
Im courious  whats this fetish  you yanks have with apples and oranges
Gary

[JackD]

"If you do not study history, you are doomed to repeat it."
Why back up , so somebody can catch up ?
The laws of nature are learned over time. Some start at a different point in time.
As far as apples and oranges are concerned it is kinda like the color coded thermometer. If the color is not enough, taste will always tell you.

[joea]

sooo tell me again why the SCTA rules for front of bike aeros changed
after 50 yrs..........used to be nothing beyond front axle......deemed too dangerous!!!!!....then production bikes such as Busa cam out with fairings
well beyond front axle.............so rule was changed that allows fairings
to front edge of front wheel............and since .... records went up 40 mph
to over 250 mph using SUCH earlier deemed dangerous fairings..........


kinda makes ya say............hmmmmmm.......

if ya dont learn from history and strive to improve upon it.........
your doomed too.............

[JackD]

The laws have not changed, but the margin of safety might have. Ask Moisan why he used Kawi bodyworks on his Suzi.
Something that might work until you break traction will make you crash when you do.
You might also consider the front weight distribution when the oil and water coolers were added to the fromt of the motor. The swing arm extensions are not just for looks either.

[Larry Forstall]

The idea is to go faster. We all agree on that. Most would agree that the tail is more important than the front for aero. A longer front improves the ram air and downforce but really only a smaller frontal area helps speed. Suzuki has surely done considerable wind tunnel testing with the Busa. It is a tribute to their design that Yancy and Noonan are going so fast. Yancy's bike has data logging and it shows that the front is getting light at speed. They had to add weight to the front fender and by the turbo to go 260. They also are accelerating much harder than a Bonneville bike so that accentuates the lift problem. Front coolers help the weight balance of the added rear ballast but it is still a dangerous guessing game. I think a stock frame would be better with a long swingarm to lengthen the body to help improve the airflow. (The primary benefit of an A frame)Yes you lose weight on the rear but that can be added. Perhaps Suzuki will build the next Busa with a lengthened tail and again we will get free aero. I am biased, I spent a lot of $$ to build a complete bike under current rules. But I do respect you all. Whatever way the rules go, be smart, be safe.    Larry

[k.h.]

http://www.tonyfoale.com/Articles/Aerodynamics/AeroOpen.jpg

http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/high%20mileage%20fairing.html      

Slippery is better.  Nature doesn't always cooperate.  The first rule for fully stretching the physics envelope is to "expect the unexpected."  Seems some of the rules are there to protect some of us from our own enthusiasm.  And the occaisional stong crosswinds.

[JackD]

"The lump in the throat of an elder is often more telling than a lump on the track."
"Look to the future, but watch your feet."

[k.h.]

Some may recall the thread about 18 months ago discussing theoretically attaching a dustbin to a turbo-Hayabusa.   I learned:  A, it won't fit the rule book.  B, it tempts fate.  C, it evoked the question of where fast M/C tires will come from when speeds surpass availability.

[JackD]

50 years ago the SCTA had no rules for MC. Prior to 1979 they were AMA rules and were pretty close to the subject and it's failures. The dustbin was ruled out after a number of mishaps that threatened the future of the sport. The combined loss history was used to allow them to run with the cars other than as a guest.
Remember who crashes and that should help.